International Journal of Therapies and Rehabilitation Research [E-ISSN: 2278-0343] http://www.scopemed.org/?jid=12 IJTRR 2015, 4: 4 I doi: 10.5455/ijtrr.00000070 Original Article Open Access Comparison of muscle strength index between Indian recreational collegiate and sedentary college students Dr. Chintan M. Parikh* , Dr. Maneesh Arora** ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT ____________________________ Background: Muscular strength is defined as ability of a muscle or muscle group to exert force. Skeletal muscle inactivity is associated with a loss of muscle protein and reduced force generating capacity. Oxidative stress further accelerates this process due to inactivity. Physical inactivity is a modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease and a widening variety of other chronic diseases, including diabetes mellitus, cancer (colon and breast), obesity, hypertension, bone and joint diseases (osteoporosis and osteoarthritis), and depression. So this study is designed to find out any significant difference in strength between those who are playing sports & those who are not playing sports & to find the characteristic of muscle strength among them. Method: The study was comparative in nature. One hundred twenty subjects of age group 20-25 were recruited and thorough explanation was given about procedure. They were divided in to two groups recreational collegiate & sedentary college students each consists of 60 subjects. Muscle strength index consists of push up, curl up, chin up, bench press, leg press, lateral pull, arm curl, leg curl, knee extension and 1 RM squat test performed within two days, on the same time & in this order only. Each test carried five points total of fifty points muscle strength index derived & comparison of muscle strength done between two groups. Results: We found significant difference in muscle strength between recreational collegiate & sedentary college student at p<0.01using two tailed unpaired t test for all individual test as well as total muscle strength index score except 1RM squat test. Conclusion: There is significant difference in upper body, lower body strength between Indian recreational collegiate and sedentary college students. We can say that playing sports has potential effect on development of muscular strength. From this study recreational athlete can be distinguished from sedentary college students in strength characteristics. Article History: Received: May 07, 2015 Accepted: July 02, 2015 Published: July 10, 2015 ____________________________ Key Words: Muscle strength comparison, Muscle strength index, 1 RM ____________________________ AUTHORS AFFILIATIONS Dr. Chintan M. Parikh* MPT (Sports Rehabilitation), Lecturer, ARIP, Department Of Physiotherapy, Charusat University, Anand. Dr. Maneesh Arora** MPT (Sports Rehabilitation), Head & Professor, Department of Physiotherapy, SBSPGI, Dehradun. Corresponding Author: Dr. Chintan Parikh*, B-107 Surya flats, B/H Bhulka Bhavan school, Anand mahel Road, Adajan, Surat395009, Gujarat, India. Tel.No.: +919427152358, Email id: parikhcm5@gmail.com INTRODUCTION Muscular imbalance is described as deviation in normal facilitation or inhibition of muscle resulting from a physical, Parikh C et al., International Journal of Therapies and Rehabilitation Research 2015; 4 (4): 77-86 mental, or chemical stressor and often leading to further diseases (osteoporosis and osteoarthritis), and depression.32,33 related imbalances and joint dysfunctions that may take Further, Muscular strength is an attribute often associated with months or years to manifest.1 Sahrmann also suggests that superior performance in sport. 9,10,11,12 repeated movements or sustained postures can lead to We are having so many fitness batteries in which muscle adaptations in muscle length, strength, and stiffness; which in strength testing is one part of fitness battery. But up till now we turn may lead to movement impairments. The relative have not found a single muscle strength battery which participation of some muscle groups (disuse or overuse) is the measures overall muscle strength. The present study is the first result of movement patterns and biomechanical influences. A study which compares muscle strength of recreational lack of strength in the medial gastrocnemius, tibialis anterior, or collegiate athlete & sedentary college students. The muscle tibialis posterior may decrease an individual’s ability to control strength tests used in present study are easy to perform, knee valgus and foot pronation motions, as well as contributing required less amount of time, requires little equipment, and to excessive medial knee displacement (MKD) and dynamic shows the athletes their level of muscular fitness valgus.2 Janda, 1978 felt that muscle imbalance in today's society is compounded by a lack of movement through regular METHODOLOGY physical activity as well as a lack of variety of movement, most Present study design was comparative in nature. After taking notably in repetitive movement disorders. ethical committee approval & signed consent form from all Skeletal muscle inactivity is associated with a loss of muscle subjects the study was performed in college gym on 120 male protein and reduced force generating capacity. Oxidative stress college students taken from 400 students of Sardar Bhagwan further accelerates this process due to inactivity. Muscles play a Singh Post Graduate Institute of Biomedical Sciences and major part in adjusting the body to environmental changes, Research, Balawala, Dehradun. Sampling method used Random which may include purposeful movement of the whole body sampling from one point in space to another, or the movement of a asymptomatic Male subjects in the age group of 20- 25 yrs. limited part of the body in respect to the body itself, or to the Those who play sports 3-4 times/ week (minimum 2-3 hours) environment.3 Muscle strength is a broad term that refers to were included in recreational college students group and other the ability of contractile tissue to produce tension and a who play sports <3 times/week were included in sedentary resultant force based on the demands placed on the muscle.4 college student group. Functional strength relates to the ability of the neuromuscular those who involved in intense gym training, any previous system to produce, reduce, or control forces, contemplated or surgery or injury to the lower extremities or low back or imposed, during functional activities, in a smooth, coordinated extreme postural deviation, any medication or intake of manner.5 substances that may cause alteration of function in the Muscular strength and endurance are one of the component of Health related physical fitness.6 via lottery method. 13, 14 Inclusion Criteria was Exclusion Criteria were Disability, The British sympathetic nervous system, performance enhancing drugs Association of Exercise and Sport Sciences recommend strength (anabolic steroids). Instruments used in study were Stop watch, training as a regular component of any physical activity Mat, Inch tape, Metronome, Chin up bar, Bench press unit, Leg program.7 The benefits of muscular fitness development press unit, Lateral pull unit, Knee extension unit. include increases in lean body tissue, bone mineral density, connective tissue strength, anaerobic power, low-back health, and self-esteem &negatively associated with morbidity and potentially premature mortality.8 Physical inactivity is a modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease and a widening variety of other chronic diseases, including diabetes mellitus, PROCEDURE The procedure followed was as described in literature for push up 15, curl up test16, chin up17 (see figure 5), bench press test18, 19, leg press test19(see figure 6), lateral pull test18, 19, arm curl test18, 20 , leg curl test 19, 21, Knee extension test 19, 20, 1 RM squat test22 (see figure 7). cancer (colon and breast), obesity, hypertension, bone and joint Parikh C et al., International Journal of Therapies and Rehabilitation Research 2015; 4 (4): 77-86 RESULTS In this study we used SPSS statistical software version 17.0 for all statistical analysis. Physical characteristic of subject from both groups (see table 1). Comparison of score of individual muscle test as well as total muscle strength index score done using unpaired t- test. The muscle strength difference was significant at p<0.01 level for all individual test as well as total muscle strength index score except 1RM squat test (see table 2) & figure 1,2,3,4. Maximum, minimum Performance value of Group A & Group B (see table 3) Table -1 Physical characteristic of subject from both groups Physical characteristics Recreational group Age (years) 21.98±1.157 Weight (kg.) 59.63±5.593 Height(cm) Sedentary group 21.93±1.425 59.78±8.041 5.586±0.2148 5.66±0.2239 BMI (kg/m²) 20.42±1.8299 21.35±2.3073 Table -2 Comparison of muscle strength tests score of both group using unpaired t-Test (p<0.01) Standard error of Tests Group No Mean ± SD t value p value mean A 60 2.700 ± 1.062 .1371 8.574 .000 B 60 1.333 ± .6288 .0811 8.574 .000 A 60 4.683 ±.7246 .0935 11.88 .000 B 60 2.933 ±.8804 .1136 11.88 .000 A 60 2.616 ±.8252 .1065 8.353 .000 B 60 1.483 ±.6507 .0840 8.353 .000 A 60 1.400 ±.6430 .0830 4.527 .000 B 60 1.016 ±.1291 .0166 4.527 .000 A 60 2.383 ±.7385 .0953 7.637 .000 B 60 1.483 ±.5365 .0692 7.637 .000 A 60 3.100 ±.8963 .1157 9.923 .000 B 60 1.633 ±.7122 .0919 9.923 .000 A 60 3.400 ±.7410 .0956 7.931 .000 B 60 2.350 ±.7089 .0915 7.931 .000 Hamstring A 60 4.266 ±.7333 .0946 11.64 .000 curl B 60 2.633 ±.8018 .1035 11.64 .000 Knee A 60 4.400 ±.6938 .0895 10.80 .000 Push up Curl up Chin ups Bench press Leg press Lateral pull Arm curl Parikh C et al., International Journal of Therapies and Rehabilitation Research 2015; 4 (4): 77-86 extension B 60 2.683 ±1.016 .1312 10.80 .000 A 60 1.000 ±.0000a .0000 B 60 1.000 ±.0000a .0000 A 60 30.21 ±3.862 .4986 18.24 .000 B 60 18.51 ±3.121 .4030 18.24 .000 1 RM squat Total score Table -3 Mean, standard deviation, maximum, minimum Performance value of Group A & Group B Test Group No. Mean SD Maximum Minimum A 60 23.45 6.371 41 12 B 60 14.18 4.810 29 1 A 60 26.31 4.986 45 15 B 60 17.80 4.765 34 10 A 60 8.330 3.000 15 1 B 60 4.160 2.512 11 1 A 60 0.760 0.118 1.134 0.512 B 60 0.610 0.082 0.789 0.324 A 60 1.920 0.223 2.424 1.491 B 60 1.553 0.286 2.064 0.330 A 60 0.980 0.091 1.211 0.821 B 60 0.795 0.113 1.060 0.380 A 60 0.535 0.071 0.704 0.376 B 60 0.440 0.057 0.570 0.298 A 60 0.635 0.091 0.801 0.447 B 60 0.463 0.094 0.633 0.179 A 60 0.769 0.107 1.052 0.551 B 60 0.560 0.124 0.914 0.246 A 60 0.829 0.135 1.109 0.557 B 60 0.650 0.149 1.381 0.300 Push up Curl up Chin up Bench press Leg press Lateral pull Arm curl Hams curl Knee extension 1 RM squat Figure 1 Mean comparisons of Test score between recreational college students (Group A) & sedentary college students (Group B) Parikh C et al., International Journal of Therapies and Rehabilitation Research 2015; 4 (4): 77-86 35 Mean Comparision of Test Score 30 Test Score 25 20 15 10 5 0 Group A Group B Figure 2 Push up norms comparison between recreational college students (Group A) & sedentary college students (GroupB) Figure 3 Bench press (1RM weight/body weight) norms comparison between recreational college students (Group A) & sedentary college students (Group B) Parikh C et al., International Journal of Therapies and Rehabilitation Research 2015; 4 (4): 77-86 Figure 4 Leg press (1RM weight/body weight) norms comparison between recreational college students (Group A) & sedentary college students (Group B) Figure 5 Chin up test Parikh C et al., International Journal of Therapies and Rehabilitation Research 2015; 4 (4): 77-86 Figure 6 1 RM leg press test Figure 7 1 RM SQUAT TEST Parikh C et al., International Journal of Therapies and Rehabilitation Research 2015; 4 (4): 77-86 DISCUSSION As per alternate hypothesis we found significant difference in muscle strength between recreational college & sedentary students with reference to their score & performance. This finding might be due to lack of physical activity & recreational sports activity in sedentary group. Further, Those who were playing sports involved with aerobic conditioning as sports like cricket, volleyball, badminton, football, table tennis have long duration, repetitive activity with intermittent burst of anaerobic activity. Theory also suggests that aerobic training with intermittent anaerobic activity have its effect on aerobic capacity as well as on anaerobic capacity.23 So in this study we found significant better strength in recreational college students who were involved indirectly with better anaerobic capacity.4, 24 Similar finding in line with this study said that gender or the level of physical activity could affect muscle strength more than body size per se.25 It also might be due to the contractile strength of skeletal muscle adaptation, increase in motor unit recruitment & greater synchronization of motor unit.26, 27 Other important physiology behind this finding might be good muscle mass in those who were playing sports. This possible reason further confirmed by one study that athletes, especially those engaged in high-impact sports, have significantly higher total bone mineral density and appendicle muscle mass, muscle strength, and maximal oxygen uptake correlate with bone density than nonathletes.28 Parikh C Two recent studies also found an intervention using recreational exercises effectively improves the muscle strength, flexibility, and balance of old-old elderly individuals.29,30 The findings of the present study suggest that the recreational athlete can be distinguished from sedentary players in strength characteristics.31 In the presents study both group have less muscle strength with reference to their performance in test when this norms compares to norms provided for recreational collegiate athlete of U.S.A. This may be due to our life style having less heavy weight lifting in day to day life, genetic limitation, environment, nutrition, heredity, compare to western counterpart & (Bouchard et al., 1992; Pangrazi & Corbin, 1990). This study confined to one small place &students of one college. Further information regarding exact activity level of subjects in both groups could have been included. CONCLUSION There is significant difference in upper body, lower body strength between Indian recreational collegiate and sedentary college students. Playing sports has potential effect on development of muscular strength. From this study recreational collegiate athlete can be distinguished from sedentary college students in their strength characteristics. Acknowledgement I am thankful to my guide Dr. Maneesh Arora, MPT (Sports Rehabilitation), Head of Department & Associate Professor, for et al., International Journal of Therapies and Rehabilitation Research 2015; 4 (4): 77-86 his continuous help and support, for showing keen interest in this venture providing a constructive criticism, valuable guidance, scholarly inputs and consistent encouragement, clarify my doubts despite his busy schedules and driving the research through his great visionary. I would also like to thank Ms. Anusiyal mam, Dr. Gaurang & Dr. Neha Vesmawala for their kind help in statistical analysis of data. References 1. Mosby's Dictionary of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (c) (2005). Elsevier. 2. Bell, D.R., Padua, D.A., and Clark, M.A., (2008). Muscle strength and flexibility characteristics of people displaying excessive medial knee displacement. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 89, 1323–1328. 3. Lehminkuhl, L.D., and Smith, L.K., (1996). Brunnstrom's Clinical Kinesiology. 4th Ed. Philadelphia: FA Davis Co Publication, 120-123. 4. Kishner, c., Colby L. A., (2007). Therapeutic exercise: foundations and technique. Edition: 5, 62-63. 5. O’Sullivan, S.B., (2001). Assessment of motor function. O’Sullivan, SB, Schmitz, TJ (eds) Physical Rehabilitation: Assessment and Treatment, ed 4. FA Davis, Philadelphia, p 177. 6. American College of Sports Medicine Position Stand, (2003). 7. Stratton, G., Jones, M., Fox, K.R., Tolfrey, K., Harris, J., Maffulli, N., (2004). BASES position statement on guidelines for resistance exercise in young people. Journal of Sports Sciences, 22, 383-390. 8. Warburton, D., Nicol C. W., Bredin S., (2006). Health benefits of physical activity: the evidence. CMAJ, 174(6), 801-809. 9. Cronin, J.B., Hansen, K.T., (2005). Strength and power predictors of sports speed. Jornal ofStrength and Conditioning Research, 19, 349–357. 10. Stone, M.H., Sands, W.A., Pierce, K.C., Carlock, J., Cardinale, M., Newton, R.U., (2005). Relationship of maximum strength to weightlifting performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 37, 1037– 1043. 11. Stone, M.H., Sanborn, K., O’Bryant, H.S., (2003). Maximum strength-power-performance relationships in collegiate throwers. Journal of\ Strength Conditioning and research, 17, 739–745. 12. Bret, C., Rahmani, A., Dufour, A.B., Messonnier, L., Lacour, J.R., (2002). Leg strength and stiffness as ability factors in 100 m sprint running. J Sports Med Phys Fitness, 42, 274–281. 13. Clark, R.A., (2008). Hamstring Injuries: Risk Assessment and Injury Prevention. Annals Academy of Medicine Singapore, 37, 341-346. 14. Borowski, L.A., Yard, E.E., Fields, S.K., and Dawn, R., Comstock (2008). The Epidemiology of US High School Basketball Injuries, 2005- 2007. American Journal of Sports Medicine. 15. Hashim, A., Madon, M.S., (2012). Objectivity, Reliability and Validity of the 90º Push-Ups TestProtocol among Male and Parikh C Female Students of Sports Science Program World Academy ofScience, Engineering and Technology, 66, 243- 246. 16. Porcari, J.P., Miller, J., Cornwell, K., Foster, C., Gibson, M., McLean, K., Kernozek, T., (2005). The Effects of Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation Training on Abdominal Strength, Endurance, and Selected Anthropometric Measures. Journal of Sports Science andMedicine 4, 66-75. 17. Boyle, M., (2004). Functional Training for Sports, 13. 18. Abdul-Hameed, U., Rangra, P., Shareef, M.U., Hussain, M.E., (2012). Reliability of 1-Repetition Maximum Estimation for Upper and Lower Body Muscular Strength Measurement in Untrained Middle Aged Type 2 Diabetic Patients. AsianJournal of Sports Medicine, Volume 3 (Number x), xxxxx , Pages: xx-xx. 19. Seo, D., Kim, E., Fahs, C.A., Rossow, L., Young, K., Ferguson, S.L., Thiebaud, R., Sherk, V.D., Loenneke, J.P., Kim, D., Lee, M., Choi, K.,\ Bemben, D.A., Bemben, M.G., and So, W.Y., (2012). Reliability of the one-repetition maximum test based on muscle group and gender. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine 11, 221 225. 20. Eston, R., and James, H., Evans, L., (2009). The validity of submaximal ratings of perceived exertion to predict one repetition maximum, Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 8, 567-573. 21. RRDS Clinical Guide, (1993). Physical Fitness: A Guide for Individuals with Lower Limb Loss, chapter 9, Conditioning Exercises: Legs, 109. 22. Hoffman J., (2006). Norms for fitness, performance and health, 35. 23. Wilk, K.E., Escamilla, R.F., Fleisig, G.S., Barrentine, S.T., Andrews, J.R., Boyd, M.L., (1996). A comparison of tibiofemoral joint forces and electromyographic activity during open and closed kinetic chain exercises. The AmericanJournal of Sports Medicine, 24(4), 518-27. 24. Tabata, Izumi; Nishimura, Kouji; Kouzaki, Motoki; Hirai, Yuusuke; Ogita, Futoshi; Miyachi, Motohiko; Yamamoto, Kaoru., (1996). Effects of moderate-intensity endurance and highintensity intermittent training on anaerobic capacity and VO2max, Medicine & Science in Sports &Exercise Issue: Volume 28(10), pp 1327-1330. 25. Neder, J.A., Nery, L.E., Silva, A.C., Andreoni, S., Whipp, B.J., (1999). Maximal aerobic power and leg muscle mass and strength related to age in non-athletic males and females. EuropeanJournal of Applied Physiology, 79, 522-530 26. Kraska, J.M., Ramsey, M.W., Haff, G.G., Fethke, N., Sands, W.A., Stone, M.E., and Stone, M.H., (2009). Relationship between Strength Characteristics and Un weighted and Weighted Vertical Jump Height, International Journal ofSports Physiology and Performance, 4, 461-473. 27. Stone, M.H., O’Bryant, H.S., McCoy, L., Coglianese, R., Lehmkuhl, M., Schilling B., (2003). Power and maximum strength relationships during performance of dynamic and static weighted jumps. Journal of Strength andConditioning and Research, 17, 140–147. et al., International Journal of Therapies and Rehabilitation Research 2015; 4 (4): 77-86 28. Andreoli, A., Monteleone, M., Loan, M.V., Promenzio, L., Tarantino, U., And Lorenzo, A., (2001). Effects of different sports on bone density and muscle mass in highly trained athletes. Medicine & Science in Sports &Exercise, 01959131/01/3304-0507-511. 29. Seong-il Cho1, Duk-hyun An2, Won-gyu Yoo2* (2014), Effects of Recreational Exercises on the Strength,Flexibility, and Balance of Old-old Elderly Individuals, J. Phys. Ther. Sci. 26: 1583–1584. 30. Cahow C, Gassaway J, Rider C, et al., (2012). Relationship of therapeutic recreation inpatient rehabilitation interventions and patient characteristics to outcomes following spinal cord injury: the SCIRehab project. J SpinalCord Med, 35: 547–564. [Medline] [CrossRef] 31. I. Gissis et al.(2006).Strength and speed characteristics ofelite, subelite, and recreational young soccer players, Research in Sports Medicine, 14: 205–214. 32. Bouchard C, Shephard RJ, (1994). Physical activity fitness and health: the model and key concepts. In: Bouchard C, Shephard RJ, Stephens T, editors. Physical activity fitness and health: International proceedings and consensus statement. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics;. p. 77-88. 33. Lee IM, Skerrett PJ., (2001). Physical activity and all-cause mortality: What is the dose–response relation? [discussion S493-4]. Med Sci Sports Exerc;33:S459-71. Parikh C et al., International Journal of Therapies and Rehabilitation Research 2015; 4 (4): 77-86